Deporting every illegal immigrant in the US isn't going to happen. My view is that immigrants who've been here more than x years, who are willing to learn English and pay back taxes, and who haven't committed any crimes, should be given citizenship. Given, they should be barred from taking advantage of welfare, Medicare, Social Security, or any other handout program for a certain period of time - we don't need leeches - and anyone who isn't given amnesty should be immediately deported. If that costs a lot of money, too bad. I'm also in favor of shifting the numbers of people accepted from various nations based on the track record of people previously accepted.

Practically speaking, America can use people who are willing to contribute, and leaving illegals in limbo because you aren't willing to either deport or naturalize them isn't a workable solution. Either make them citizens or ship them out.

I too like John Howard - I wish someone could stand up here and say things like that here without getting trashed. Too many Americans have no pride in being American.

We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for our values and our traditions lest they be washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. As you likely know, I am running for President of the United States, and I am asking for your support.

I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.

I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore those rights for all Americans, born and unborn alike. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called "population control." Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

I have also acted to protect the lives of Americans by my adherence to the doctrine of "just war." This doctrine, as articulated by Augustine, suggested that war must only be waged as a last resort--- for a discernible moral and public good, with the right intentions, vetted through established legal authorities (a constitutionally required declaration of the Congress), and with a likely probability of success.

It has been and remains my firm belief that the current United Nations-mandated, no-win police action in Iraq fails to meet the high moral threshold required to wage just war. That is why I have offered moral and practical opposition to the invasion, occupation and social engineering police exercise now underway in Iraq. It is my belief, borne out by five years of abject failure and tens of thousands of lost lives, that the Iraq operation has been a dangerous diversion from the rightful and appropriate focus of our efforts to bring to justice to the jihadists that have attacked us and seek still to undermine our nation, our values, and our way of life.

I opposed giving the president power to wage unlimited and unchecked aggression, However, I did vote to support the use of force in Afghanistan. I also authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation.

On September 17, 2001, I stated on the house floor that striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal or to know when the war is over. Inadvertently more casual acceptance of civilian deaths as part of this war I'm certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible. I'm sorry to say that history has proven this to be true.

I am running for president to restore the rule of law and to stand up for our divinely inspired Constitution. I have never voted for legislation that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. As president, I will never sign a piece of legislation, nor use the power of the executive, in a manner inconsistent with the limitations that the founders envisioned.

Many have given up on America as an exemplar for the world, as a model of freedom, self-government, and self-control. I have not. There is hope for America. I ask you to join me, and to be a part of it.

Ron Paul is right when he says the republicans won in the year 2000 on a humble foreign policy, no nation building, no policing the world. This is just what Ron Paul is saying but the difference is that Ron Paul is not a band-aid man he is a doctor and he is going for surgery. This is the only way.

Hmm. We didn't go to Vietnam, or Korea, or Afghanistan, or Iraq to push our beliefs on others. At the time, all of those appeared to be an issue of national defense. In retrospect, of course, many of those may not have been necessary, but it's easy to look back and second-guess when you weren't the one who had to make the decisions.

We were about two days from winning in Vietnam when we pulled out, as the memoirs of one of the enemy generals show. We could also have won months before if half the nation wasn't busy destroying troop morale, and if the liberal parts of Congress weren't helpfully leaking all our military plans to the enemy, and if asinine rules of engagement hadn't been put into place. Going there probably wasn't a good idea, but once we went there, we should have fought to win.

The reason we haven't "won" yet in Iraq is that we simply didn't have enough soldiers over there - only about 1/10 the number of soldiers per square mile that we had in Vietnam. It's easy to see this is true by the fact that the "surge" of a few extra tens of thousands of troops has caused a massive drop in violence. It may not have been a good idea to go over there originally, but now that we're there, the object again should be to win. To win, you need peace long enough for people to get used to it and see the advantages. The current strategy seems to be working to some extent.

As far as policing the world goes, there are some areas such as the Sudan where a few soldiers would make a big difference. We shouldn't be sending large chunks of our military all over the place to promote our point of view, but I don't see why a few Special Forces teams can't be sent here and there to prevent outright murder. If x group is killing y group that's peaceful and friendly to us, eliminate x group's leadership. It's more fair than having a war and killing most of x groups soldiers, or letting y group get slaughtered because nobody cares.

In a perfect world, of course, nations would all band together to force nasty people / governments to be nice without war, but many of the nations of the world prefer chaos, or worse yet, are totally committed to killing anyone not of their religious point of view, or worst of all, just want to take over the world. We could definitely be a lot less aggressive, but I wouldn't go all the way to saying we should be isolationist either. We should just never start wars that we aren't 100% committed to finishing, or wars that are likely to kill a lot more (good) people than they save.

I think Ron Paul is the best option. He is very open about his support of homeschooling. I don't believe that Giuliani or Romney would be good options for homeschool voters. They would talk the talk, but in the end, wouldn't abolish the department of education or try and support vouchers. I am impressed that Huckabee appointed a homeschooling mom to the state board of education, that definitely makes me raise an eye brow about him.

Ron Paul won't win the election, but if he earns enough delegates, the winner could through a few things his way, such as appointing him to head a given government department, or to promise to appoint another like minded libertarian-republican to a key position. I would love to see a person like that in charge of a big department, and stripping it down year by year to a better, smaller level.

If this is to be believed, the only Republican candidate with a good chance of winning the overall election is McCain. He's only a tiny bit behind either Obama or Clinton (either of which could win the primary). Romney is doing pretty badly, however, and I notice they didn't even poll for Ron Paul. Would be funny if everyone decided they didn't like the available selection and went and voted Ron Paul at the last second.

Parental control of child rearing, especially education, is one of the bulwarks of liberty. No nation can remain free when the state has greater influence over the knowledge and values transmitted to children than the family.INTRODUCTION OF THE FAMILY EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT â€” HON. RON PAUL